(The following story by Ted Jackovics appeared on the Tampa Tribune website on March 1.)
TAMPA — John Melovich and Danny Swails rely on 66 years of combined experience in switching freight cars around CSX’s Yeoman rail yard.
They also rely on technology like never before, beginning each workday by strapping electronic devices that look like industrial-duty Nintendo gear to their waists.
Melovich and Swails form a distinctive CSX crew, one of five locally that operate diesel locomotives by remote control without an engineer in the cab.
The veteran employees have become part of a nationwide evolution in the railroad industry that CSX joined two years ago when it launched remote operations in Jacksonville and Tampa.
Like the demise of the caboose two decades ago, the replacement of engineers in certain yard-switching operations has become a milestone in the culture of railroading.
“As far as engines, I think this is the biggest change since the 1940s when we went from steam to diesel,” said Melovich, a remote-control foreman who, like the old days, calls himself a conductor.
CSX views remote-control operations as an opportunity to reduce injuries and costs. Its promise appears to fit with financial and safety imperatives created by Chief Executive Officer Michael Ward, who succeeded John Snow when Snow became Treasury secretary in 2003.
CSX has struggled with safety problems that drew the attention of the Federal Railroad Administration in 2000 and financial issues as recently as last year, when earnings declined as the general economy improved.
CSX will wrap up its first phase of remote operations by midyear, spokesman Gary Sease said.
“Then we are going to step back a little, evaluate how it has worked and improve on our use of it,” he said.
CSX has trained 2,300 employees at 60 locations to operate remote-locomotive systems without engineers. In Tampa, the railroad has retained eight conventional three-person yard-switching crews alongside its five remote crews.
The movement largely has gone unnoticed by the public. But within the railroad industry, safety and economic factors remain an issue three years after the FRA issued guidelines for remote-control use.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation last year directed the railroad agency to assess its policies on remote control. The agency will issue preliminary findings this spring and a full report by next year. So far, it has found no systemic problems with remote technology, agency spokesman Warren Flatau said.
In accordance with agency guidelines, remote operations basically operate within rail yards rather than “over-the- road” trips, although some railroads have extended service to industries just beyond rail yards.
“The FRA has been pretty firm it has no intention of permitting over-the-road, mainline operations,” Flatau said.
Unions Fight For Control
The remote operations could signal a major change in railroad employment in the long run, even though CSX said no engineers have been laid off because of the system’s introduction.
Industrywide, a shortage of qualified locomotive engineers has meant many of those who lost jobs to remote-control crews were transferred to other assignments, said John Bentley of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
During arbitration in January 2003, the engineers union lost the right to represent those with remote-control jobs to the United Transportation Union, which represents trainmen on the ground. Engineers directed resentment toward both unions.
“There was disappointment, anger and frustration, and the feeling engineers had been sold out,” Bentley said.
But the surfeit of other jobs helped mitigate some tension in CSX, which said it plans to hire about 1,200 trainmen/conductors, the entry point for promotion to locomotive engineer, Sease said. Though it varies, entry-level conductors can earn $35,000 before overtime, and engineers about $45,000.
“If it were not for engineers, we could not serve our customers and make money,” Sease said. “We have a great deal of respect for their union, but we have significant differences on this issue of remote control.”
No matter how the locomotives are controlled, the job of maneuvering massive amounts of cargo can be dangerous.
The most frequent safety problems in rail yards involve slips, trips and falls, said Brad Cooper, trainmaster of the Florida Business Unit for CSX Transportation in Tampa and a former CSX engineer.
A switcher locomotive weighs several hundred tons, and the weight of the cars it pulls depends on the cargo. A loaded coal car, for example, can weigh 100 tons.
The critically dangerous moment occurs when a trainman steps between two freight cars to connect or disconnect the couplers. In a conventional operation involving an engineer in the cab, the trainman on the ground lets the engineer know via radio when it is safe to move.
“With remote, we can go back and forth making the [coupling] move while actually controlling the engine,” said Swails, a switchman who now is called a remote-controlled operator.
“It’s not that big a change once you get the feel of it,” said Melovich, who has operated strings of diesel locomotives in rail yards from the engineer’s cab. “It’s all about getting the feel for the weight.”
CSX provides an 80-hour training course for remote operators, with 40 hours in classrooms and 40 hours on the job.
One issue that arose with the use of remote units was radio interference, said Michael Seawell, terminal manager for CSX Transportation in Tampa. But early conflicts in Tampa have been ironed out, he said.
He also sought to ease concerns that a locomotive could be seized remotely. “There is no problem as far as security is concerned,” Seawell said.
Economics And Safety
Through the first year and a half of remote-control operations, CSX reported it cut accidents with damages of more than $6,700 by 60 percent.
It trimmed another 50 percent in the first half of 2003, said Sease, the CSX spokesman. Comparative safety gains were not as dramatic the second half of 2003, which CSX said is a result of safer conventional operations that match remote operations.
“The actual technology has not been identified as a cause in any train accident since it began on CSX in early 2002,” Sease said.
For its assessment, the railroad agency is separating accident reports between conventional and remote operations, but it has not released a report comparing the two.
The engineers union compiles its own list of accident reports from official and unofficial reports. It lists three incidents at Tampa rail yards involving remote-control operations: An unspecified injury occurred when a horn malfunctioned in November 2002; three railroad cars derailed in August; and a communication breakdown resulted in blocked traffic on State Road 60 for more than an hour, also in August.
At least three deaths have occurred nationwide during remote operations, engineers union spokesman Bentley said, in addition to several amputations.
CSX said it has not seen savings yet, but it expects to reduce labor costs in the long run.
“We have not quantified economic benefits yet,” Sease said. “Some yards where we put this in actually slowed operations down a bit as people got used to the new technology.”
Training programs and equipment costs, which CSX does not reveal because of competition between suppliers, have added to expenses.
Veterans such as Melovich said there’s little kidding between conventional and nonconventional crews in the customary rail-yard repartee.
“It has taken some of the prime jobs from the engineers in the long haul,” Melovich said. “But we realize this is how the unions have sanctioned this, and if we don’t get qualified, that means even less jobs.”